HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_SD-20-16_255 Kennedy_OBrien_Ph2_PP_memo
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: SD‐20‐16 255 Kennedy Drive Preliminary Plat Application
DATE: October 20, 2020 Development Review Board meeting
O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, has submitted preliminary plat application #SD‐20‐16 for the next phase of a
previously approved master plan for up to 458 dwelling units and up to 45,000 sf of office space. The phase
consists of six (6) multi‐family residential buildings with a total of 342 dwelling units, of which 48 are proposed
inclusionary units, and an additional offset of 48 market rate units, for a total of 390 dwelling units and
underground parking, and 3,500 sf of commercial space, 255 Kennedy Drive.
The Board reviewed the application on May 19, July 7, August 4, and most recently September 15, 2020.
During those hearings the applicant provided testimony on the applicable review criteria and received Board
feedback. The Board continued the hearing with the intention of reviewing the provided materials, beginning a
draft decision, and allowing an opportunity for additional discussion if required. This memo summarizes only
the areas for which Staff considers the Board may have additional questions. The Board intends to deliberate
prior to the October 20 hearing, and may add or remove topics as they determine to be appropriate.
A) Review and Approval Procedure
As noted on 9/15, the applicant has provided what Staff considers to be an acceptable level of detail for
preliminary plat. However, this detail is somewhat less than the Board is accustomed to seeing at preliminary
plat.
1. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant that the decision will find a number of criteria
preliminarily met, and will provide some guidance but not necessarily specific instructions on how to achieve
final plat compliance with those criteria. Staff has discussed this concept with the applicant and anticipates
they will find it acceptable, but feels it important to state explicitly in order to prevent misunderstandings at
final plat.
B) Relationship of Proposed Development to Comprehensive Plan, Structures to Site and to Adjoining Area
The standards of 14.06 pertain to relationship to the comprehensive plan, relationship between structures
and each other, the site, and adjoining areas. They require safe pedestrian movement, adequate planting,
and adequate parking. Attractive transitions between buildings of different styles are required.
The applicant provided testimony and supplemental exhibits on 7/7 and 7/21 about enhanced street presence
for each building, and provided updated elevation drawings and “Image Sheets” reflecting these updates for
the 9/15 hearing date. A thorough discussion of the proposal was included in the staff comments for 9/15. To
#SD‐20‐16
2
summarize, the applicant is proposing a small common space roughly the size of 1.5 parking spaces on the
buildings, decorative screening of the garage openings, and has provided schematic illustrations of street‐side
landscape architecture.
2. Staff recommends the Board revisit these concepts and determine if the applicant has conceptually
proposed enough improvements to overcome the concerns expressed by the Board on 5/19.
West of the planned entry to Two Brothers Drive, Kennedy Drive is principally characterized by mature wooded
areas and, where visible, two‐story multi‐family buildings. The proposed four story building (three residential
floors above a garage) is proposed to be placed 60 feet from Kennedy Drive with a gravel wetland in front. On
7/7, the applicant testified that they believed the tree area would provide adequate transition.
3. Staff notes the Board did not respond to that testimony at the time, and recommends the Board consider
the proposal prior to closing the hearing.
C) Roadway Geometry, Cross Section and Sidewalks
The roadway alignment was approved at the master plan level, though review of this criterion was deferred to
individual phases. 15.12 pertains to roadway geometry, cross section, and sidewalks. Staff therefore considers
the Board should closely review the proposed roadway cross sections and sidewalks at this stage of review.
On 9/15, the Board and applicant agreed to engage a streetscape design professional to develop a roadway cross
section that balances the following goals.
a) an appropriately urban setting, including an activated street
b) non‐vehicular connectivity through the project area, including for people who live between Two Brothers
Drive and Eldridge Street and people who live on the far side of Kennedy Drive, and those who may live
in the future phase of the O’Brien development.
c) slow speeds
d) roadway maintenance
4. Staff recommends the Board confirm that the above reflects their expectations, and confirm that they would
accept a configuration that involves a different combination of on‐road lanes, separated paths, and sidewalks
than is currently proposed as long as the above objectives are met.
D) Parking
LDR 14.06B(2) prohibits parking to the front of a building.
There are 2 space on each of Lots 12 and 15 where parking spaces are proposed in front of the building, the
removal of which Staff considers can be a condition of approval.
The larger issue is the extensive parking proposed on Lot 17, which is outside of the master plan area and the
PUD. On 9/15, the applicant testified that they would like to apply for conditional use approval for the parking
on Lot 17. The Board indicated they would have to see what was proposed for development on Lot 17 in order
to determine whether the parking was allowed. Since much of the parking on Lot 17 is proposed to be on a
parking lot which is split between lots 13 and 17, Staff considers the failure of the applicant to obtain
conditional use approval for parking on Lot 17 would prevent this current project from obtaining final plat
approval. The applicant has not proposed an alternative for meeting the parking demands of this current
project if they are unable to meet the conditional use criteria for the proposed parking. The Board on 9/15
provided direction that they could envision a conditional use approval for the parking that is split between Lots
13 and 17, but expressed concerns about the approvability of the access drive with head‐in parking on Lot 17.
#SD‐20‐16
3
5. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they would prefer to see a temporary access drive on Lot 17,
to exclude sidewalks and curbing, in order to facilitate redevelopment of Lot 17 in the future, or whether the
board would prefer the applicant to omit parking on the access drive altogether.
Compact Parking
Subsurface parking dimensions are strongly dependent on structural building design, and therefore this
issue should be resolved prior to final building design.
The applicant has testified that compact parking spaces are proposed to be 18’x8’. Standard parking
spaces are 18’x9’ with 24‐foot drive aisles. Staff supports a waiver of 1‐foot in width if the drive aisles
are standard width.
6. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to confirm that drive aisle widths will be the
standard 24‐feet at this stage of review. Staff recommends the Board determine whether to accept
the requested parking dimensional waiver at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner